3 ms·
You are right. There is no technical reason it should be as slow as it is. It's just that not enough resource was spent to make it fast. I mean, if this were a
by sanxiyn 5y ago
You are right. There is no technical reason it should be as slow as it is. It's just that not enough resource was spent to make it fast. I mean, if this were a higher priority, Rust issue #26600 would have been fixed years ago.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26600 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26600
- pornel 5y agoLooks like it's blocked by lack of required LLVM support.
- sanxiyn 5y agoAgain, if this were a priority, it would have happened. But compile time is low priority. Its priority is lower than a quite niche feature like cross-language LTO, which happened in 2019. https://blog.llvm.org/2019/09/closing-gap-cross-language-lto-between.html https://blog.llvm.org/2019/09/closing-gap-cross-language-lto...
- mastax 5y ago> Currently, GlobalISel is within 1.5 the speed of FastISel according to https://llvm.org/docs/GlobalISel/index.html https://llvm.org/docs/GlobalISel/index.html and they have some ambitions for getting it within 1.1 or 1.2 in time, so it seems likely that GlobalISel will close this issue before FastISel grows the relevant support. Heh